Judge allegedly declares the New Deal illegal?

[David Merrill]

One of the suitors sent me a great article:


This judge seems to rule the same as me...

With such common names, I am having trouble finding the case mentioned. Let's presume that it is true though.

My prosecution seems a bit more concise:

[allodial]

The New Deal.... at a stretch perhaps it was League of Nations territorial 'polity' being passed off as de jure government? However, they switched things up starting 1942 to 1946 and after with United Nations territorial government pandering to the several states of America for a jurisdictional and socio-political easement and being passed off as de jure federal government? For those who really need a translation: executive agreements and arbitrary feelings (mood swings?) being passed off respectively as if lawful treaties or sound principle.



[For some reason, even as a little child, intuition for me always pegged Lyndon Johnson as having been a proponent of the key agenda of keeping the New Deal from sunsetting by renewing it (one way or another)--even if that meant forcibly victimizing Blacks by keeping them a captive audience for as long as possible.] Only he called it "Great Society" or something. What exactly did he mean by "Great"?

Imagine someone stealing all of your stuff and then making a 'glorious deal' with you about how he'll allow you to have some of it back in small pieces if you'll beg and fill out the right forms from time to time and oh .."...if you'll stop following that Bible way of life and stop getting married and 'pesky' stuff like that".

Related topics: private international law, conflict of laws.

If they want to create 'something new' (when there is nothing new under the Sun) what do they do? They blur jurisdictional distinctions thereby creating 'new' resulting jurisdictions or resulting venues (and 'resulting trusts' to boot). By using the same names for different old and new trusts confusion and deception just might result!

{Conflict of Laws} is a subject taught in almost every law-school around the world, also known as Private International Law. 2) Its typical problems arise from foreign trade and cross-cultural marriages, as are reported about King Solomon in the Bible. 3) Ancient Egypt permitted marriages between bro- ther and sister in conjunction with the law of matrilineal succession. Thus the kingdom of Egypt was inherited by the eldest daughter of the pharaoh, who had to marry her own brother in order to continue the dynasty. 4) If she married an outsider, a new dynasty began, and if the outsider was a foreigner from Israel, it would be the Israelite dynasty. However, such an Israelite dynasty of Egypt might be short-lived, since incestuous marriages were strictly prohibited under biblical law.... --Conflict of Laws in the Israelite Dynasty of Egypt, by Ed Metzler]
{The warning against going after strange gods is for a very good reason!}

Blurring the distinction between public and private, a potentially dangerous thing: especially when the intent is to turn things private into things public and without just or equitable compensation (i.e. felony larceny under guise of good intentions). Folks who are always out to steal, tacitly admit how very little might they have of positive value (even between the ears). I suspect it starts with their denial of the one named at Exodus 3:14--they cut themselves off from creation and creativity and seek to own creators because they cannot be (in their state of mind)..creators. They seek 'unity' after cutting themselves off from the creator. What a perverse kind of seeking unity through sexual ritual and sodomy: cutting themselves off from creation and then setting out to forcibly graft others into their lonely hell. Some might dare call it witchcraft.



Remember, in philosophy, no matter what kind of fathomless collage of intellectual diversity they try to paint as existing in academia it seems it ultimately comes down to this: Aristotle vs. Jesus Christ and the Apostles (and even vs. Plato to boot).

***

The alt-right and others are clearly deceived. They speak about diversity and multiculturalism while clearly perpetrating the mistake of diversity in physical appearance being ''cultural (or jurisprudential) diversity'. Consider Black Englishmen and White Englishmen who have been Christians and have lived together in England peacefully for hundreds of years: that is not cultural diversity but diversity in physical appearance. The color of your skin is not your culture, duh!

However, the danger of cultural diversity to a state's sovereignty, peace and dignity is that 'multiculturalism' (i.e. no-one-culturalism) has as of late been promoted as a means to promote terra nullis, to devolve or dismiss a sovereign state into the chaos of internationality (i.e. inter-culturalism) to the extent that if no one culture can claim the reigns, then the internationalists award themselves with power to manage the situation. Consider what is going on in Europe. This is because those who promote such do not want to be under any law but yet they want to be the law. That is why EU membership for the UK allowed for prosecution of 'crimes' in the UK-EU Territory on an arbitrary and whimsical basis.


Noah's ark had only one door. See also: "I am the door..." John 10:9 KJV

Related:

• Where did the Tennessee Valley Authority come from?
• The Ark: A Type of the Church

[David Merrill]

Thanks Allodial;


I heard somewhere that LBJ made five career advances by his predecessor dying.

[allodial]

Thanks Allodial;


I heard somewhere that LBJ made five career advances by his predecessor dying.

That wouldn't surprise me at all.